US "War" with Iran

[Kibitzer]

Originally Posted by Aoune

I thought I would remind you of what I wrote a couple of weeks ago. I had written this also 3 months ago in a different thread with different words.

http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showthread...ighlight=aoune

Yes, I remember it and in fact was preparing a post (have to look up all those pesky sources, which takes time) when the grand-kids arrived. When I got back to it later .... the thread had sorta gone "south".

I certainly hope your "source" is wrong on this one. My hope is that the "war" will be fought financially ..... indications that I'm finding are that it may well be possible. Look also at what is happening politically inside Iran.

The neo-cons in the USA are (pardon my language) a total pain is the a$$. They want war immediately and they are pushing for a nuclear war, which is I guess the only option if war is inevitable. I think the US Military is almost too stretched for anything else and of course we have Iraq as an example of "on the ground". I don't think Bush has the political capitol to pull it off even if he wants to ..... but ...... as you well know, if something happens in the USA like 9/11 that could all change quickly. The same neo-cons say that it will as Nejab wants and needs a war because of his own political position and of course his hard-line Anti-American rhetoric just fuels the fire.

Don't you just love all the wild rumors and speculation .... if they would only spend the energy and money on humanitarian efforts, think how different the world would be. I always enjoy your posts Aoune.

[DukeRustfield]

Try to ignore Limbaugh and Hannity.

Uh, I only speak about traditional media. Reports such as:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...13/wiran13.xml

I thought I would remind you of what I wrote a couple of weeks ago

Aoune, that's part of the confirmation I was looking for. Thanks.

Here's some more data Duke: By definition, no democracy will ever be able to bomb its will through and upon others.

It worked in WWII against Germany to an extent AND Japan completely. It worked in Kosovo to stave off Milosovich. It was the bulk of what worked in Afganistan. It worked in the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq post war. I'm sure there are many examples I'm not aware of. So I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you. Democracy doesn't mean it doesn't bomb countries, it just mean the citizens vote and agree that they should bomb countries.

[jiugiusti]

Originally Posted by lebluv

U mean "u wish"

in red...whenever u say somethin bas about USA u try to appologize in a way or another...by adding russia or china...


****.

It is neither a wish nor the issue on hand..
It is about a conversation I had with a iranian (french) acquaintance of mine who raise this type of internal conflict which seems feasible.
And it is not about it is not about appologizing or not.. Russia and China are USA allies on many issues (levels) we, the mortal, think that they are opponents.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

It worked in WWII against Germany to an extent AND Japan completely. It worked in Kosovo to stave off Milosovich. It was the bulk of what worked in Afganistan. It worked in the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq post war. I'm sure there are many examples I'm not aware of. So I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you.

It only takes ONE exception to confirm the rule: Vietnam.
You need more: Iraq, on the making.

Democracy doesn't mean it doesn't bomb countries, it just mean the citizens vote and agree that they should bomb countries.

And that's the delicate part of it: Vote and Agree, which i also called "Own built-in system emergency brakes".
Doesn't take much to tip the scale, between "Bomb'em, Bomb'em" and "Quit and run" cuts the thin line of a public poll on popularity before any upcoming elections.

[mehdi soldier]

Originally Posted by Kibitzer

Duke ... do a little research about what is going on in Iran today - pay particular attention to their economy, political unrest and what the people think. The US is doing plenty to Iran and it is not going to involve war. Try to ignore Limbaugh and Hannity. Take a closer look at the economy of Iran and odd as it may seem ... their energy problems.

i guess thats a wish.economy?well,i dont think the economy in iran is worst than it was under sayyid muhammad khatami ,a "reformist".so the economy doesnt bother much ,if i were in najad's cabinet.

political unrest?which one?those un-godly iranian cockraoches in the west who hate their govt. because they cant wear mini skirt or drink a bottle of beer?no,they're kidding.afterall there is no perfect govt. in the entire world.no matter what there would be opposition.the iranian people came out ovrwhelmingly to uproot the shah and install ayatollah khomeini.how often does a nation make such change?infact how many are against the islamic republic rather than that of najad to start with?najad is the presient and was elected,if the iranians are not satisfied with his economic reforms he promised,they can refuse to give him another term.

any other sort of political unrest?maybe ethnic?well again as an islamic reppublic,ther is little or no rascism.the supreme leader of iran ayatollah khamanei is not persian.he is azeri.so dont bet on ethnic problems.

You are correct about one thing - Lebanon or more particularly Hezbollah may well be involved as will Syria. As usual, Lebanon is caught in the middle of the whole mess. About the only thing you can say that is good is that (so far) the US is not giving in to the "deal" that Syria wants. Syria will trade help in Iraq if the US will "give" Lebanon back to them. Looks like that is not going to happen and isn't it disgusting that nations can talk about "giving" or "taking" other nations as part of some kind of "deal". The internet is a great help in stopping this sort of nonsense. Back in the old days - it was all under the table, back room "deals" and it is almost impossible to keep that sort of thing out of the public eye today. I just love the internet! The age of instant information.

its really disgusting when a foreigner tries to define what is lebanon and which part is not lebanon.hizbullah is part of lebanon,a portion that cant be separated.thats a fact the west must accept if they have any respect for lebanon and its people.hizbullah is a political party with representatives of the shia community-the largest community in lebanon.the choice of resistance and taking up arms against the zionist occupiers was done by the shia community in the south to be specific.they are the ones that suffered it the most.there is nothing like the usa trading lebanon.lebanon is not american samoa or puerto rico or panama.when the lebanese people decide to yield then syria or the usa can sell/buy us.

let me make it clear,i as a shia and hizbullah (of which am not part) would never like to see syria back.if HA opposes the march 14 on syria,it is because of the way they carried out their policies in a way that paved way for more foreign interference,this time not only from arab syria but the usa and co.

The news is that KSA made it clear to Iran that if the "opposition" toppled the government in Lebanon by force that they would consider that Iran had attacked KSA ... kinda cooled things right down ..... until the terrorist bombings of the buses.

to hell with what ksa says.infact if i were anywhere in the lebanese govt. i would have arrested the usa,iranian and saudi ambassadors.the usa ambassador who thinks he is the un-elected member of our parliament (attaending its sessions) would get the most to regret.i refuse the idea f saudi and iranian ambassador negotiating on our behalf eventhough we are close to them.this protest against the govt. by the opposition is to better lebanon.and my friend wha you're saying is realy "coooooool"!you think iran is afraid of ksa?you think ksa saying that rubbish would frighten the opposition in its continuos quest to topple the govt.?that would be the day i would become an official fpm member if the opposition yields to the saudi threat and the iranian pressure because GMA isnt going to accept.he will refuse!!!

if ksa desnt liek us getting rid of its puppets and their corruption ,let them counter-attack iran if they have the balls.they can cancel themsleves in the persian gulf.maybe then we can change our geography textbooks and rename the gulf to the "arabian gulf".

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by Kibitzer

As I said - this is not a "report" with documentation which is really the only kind that should have any validity ... don't you agree?

That said - my "understanding" is (from a variety of sources) that the talk KSA had with Iran indicated that IF Iran had any shall we say "persuasive power" with Hezbollah it would be in Iran's best interest to urge no violence.( I find it interesting that Prince Bandar was in Iran on Jan 23)
- why would Iran care?

The "word" is that KSA can afford to lower the price of oil substantially and IF that were to happen ... KSA would lose many millions of $ but can handle it economically ...... Iran cannot. Iran is already in financial straits and oil is almost their entire economy.



The price of oil is something KSA can control to a certain extent and it is only one of the "problems" Iran is dealing with today. I take all this as a good sign, with hope that the west and the other oil nations will be able to fight the "war" with Iran with something other than bombs, missiles. troops or nuclear warheads. Sounds like a better deal to me.

Iran withstood for eight long years both american/(half-western) embargo and a long exhausting war against Iraq. In any case, oil prices can not be dumped under certain level (self preservation limit) and can not be seriously considered in any respect as a "weapon" to pressure the iranians with, especially when the stakes are put on slightly more advanced religious, ideological and regional political level.

On the other hand, i guess KSAs approach against the iranians now is not different than it has been since early eighties, namely the Handle-with-care approach, when you take into account the current sunni-shia inflamed conflict on its northern borders, and its own fears for that wars implication on its own opressed shia community (roughly between 400.000 and half a million) also neighboring the shiit Bahrain. Not to mention their own home produced version of wahhabi terrorism.

As you see, the saudis sit on own share of explosives, and as they seem to enjoy sticking their fingers into other, own slaves steered, countries like Lebanon, they are well aware of their limits of actions and the extent to which they can allow themselves to play with fire..
After all, nothing is dearer to ones heart than keeping ones own butt securely ruling ones own kingdom.

[Kibitzer]

Originally Posted by taifoon

Iran withstood for eight long years both american/(half-western) embargo and a long exhausting war against Iraq. In any case, oil prices can not be dumped under certain level (self preservation limit) and can not be seriously considered in any respect as a "weapon" to pressure the iranians with, especially when the stakes are put on slightly more advanced religious, ideological and regional political level.

On the other hand, i guess KSAs approach against the iranians now is not different than it has been since early eighties, namely the Handle-with-care approach, when you take into account the current sunni-shia inflamed conflict on its northern borders, and its own fears for that wars implication on its own opressed shia community (roughly between 400.000 and half a million) also neighboring the shiit Bahrain. Not to mention their own home produced version of wahhabi terrorism.

As you see, the saudis sit on own share of explosives, and as they seem to enjoy sticking their fingers into other, own slaves steered, countries like Lebanon, they are well aware of their limits of actions and the extent to which they can allow themselves to play with fire..
After all, nothing is dearer to ones heart than keeping ones own butt securely ruling ones own kingdom.

Ain't it the truth!

About the likely-hood of this ... I could not even venture a guess. I come across all kinds of wild/crazy speculation, rumors and so on in my internet "travels". Trying to sift through it is a challenge. I've seen this one on a variety of pretty credible sites .... so who knows. Part of the deal is that supposedly Iranians go through fuel like there was no tomorrow and they do it at 35 cents a gallon. I could not believe the price! I've not seen 35 cent gas since about 1979 or so. The cheapest I ever remember paying was 16 cents a gallon and if you bought $2 worth you got a free glass ... I guess that "dates" me for sure. Consumption would have been far less in the 80's and part of it might be how much is KSA interested in using some pressure. I have no idea but I've read things like oil dropping to as low as $35 a barrel which the story is would hit Iran hard. They also import 40% of what they use and they are not getting it for the same 35 cents a gallon ..... you can bet on that.

Could be just so much saber rattling and fairy dust. Threw it out as pure rumor and speculation as stated. Always enjoy your posts Taifoon.

[DukeRustfield]

Originally Posted by taifoon

It only takes ONE exception to confirm the rule: Vietnam.
You need more: Iraq, on the making.

Oh, you said a Democracy doesn't do it. I said they do it all the time. It might not always be effective, but they do it.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

Oh, you said a Democracy doesn't do it. I said they do it all the time. It might not always be effective, but they do it.

This is what i said: .."no democracy will ever be able" to bomb its will through and upon others "

and the keywords are " able", " will", "through and upon others", meaning:
They will not achieve what they want, by force.

That they do so all the time -the bombing- i totally agree, and hence my exception example.

[Amirkani]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

Aoune, that's part of the confirmation I was looking for. Thanks.

Many people like the ones Aoune is talking about take it upon themselves to promote a particular war rather than predicting it.

Of course the Bush administration would love to try their hand at redeeming themselves in the public eyes through one more ill-advised military conflict - maybe limited air strikes against Iran because the US ground forces are stretched way beyond their comfortable level. However, the internal US politics render this redemption attempt by the Bush administration impossible.

The US admin will try to create trouble for the Iranian regime but the chances of an actual overt attack is practically null.

The US will not attack Iran.